CJEU Case C-748/24 / Judgment

Criminal proceedings against AC (Kotaňák)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Third Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
30/04/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:358
  • CJEU Case C-748/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Articles 3 and 4 – Presumption of innocence – Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Order that no further action be taken – Judicial decision that is not a decision on guilt – Setting aside and referral back to a lower court – Findings made by the higher court as to whether the constituent elements of the offence concerned are present – Obligation on the part of the lower court to comply with the rulings of the higher court – Appropriate measures in the event of breach of the presumption of innocence

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 3, Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read in conjunction with Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

      must be interpreted as not precluding a criminal court ruling on an appeal against a decision closing criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no offence, from taking a position, in detail, on incriminating evidence by carrying out a factual and legal assessment of whether the constituent elements of the criminal offence at issue are present, when that court is not required to do so under national legislation in order to give a ruling, and that assessment is based solely on the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation procedure, without the accused person having had the opportunity to comment on that evidence, provided that that assessment does not reflect an opinion that that person is guilty of that criminal offence.

    2. Article 3 of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with the principle of the primacy of EU law,

      must be interpreted as meaning that a court of first instance must disregard the rulings of an appeal court, which has set aside an order that no further action be taken and ordered the case to be referred back to that court of first instance, where those rulings are incompatible with the presumption of innocence, even if the national legislation requires that court of first instance to comply with those rulings, without, however, Article 3 of that directive precluding that court of first instance from being required to pursue the procedural measures ordered by that appeal court.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    38. By its first three questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 48 of the Charter, concerning the presumption of innocence, must be interpreted as precluding a criminal court ruling on an appeal against a decision closing criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no offence, from taking a position, in detail, on incriminating evidence by carrying out a factual and legal assessment of whether the constituent elements of the criminal offence at issue are present, when that court is not required to do so, under national legislation, in order to give a ruling, and that assessment is based solely on the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation procedure, without the accused person having had the opportunity to comment on that evidence.

    ...

    48. Furthermore, given that the substantive and procedural conditions for the adoption of a decision such as that at issue in the main proceedings fall within the scope of national law alone (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 November 2019, Spetsializirana prokuratura, C‑653/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1024, paragraph 38), the general procedural rules governing the preliminary stage of criminal proceedings leading to the adoption of such a decision cannot be regarded as concerning the implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. Accordingly, Article 48(2) of the Charter, which provides for respect for the rights of the defence, is not applicable to that preliminary stage of criminal proceedings.

    ...

    56. Although Article 4(1) of Directive 2016/343 gives Member States discretion in adopting the necessary measures for the purposes of that provision, the fact remains, as is evident from recital 48 to that directive, that the level of protection offered by Member States should never be below the standards set out in the Charter and the ECHR, including those relating to the presumption of innocence (judgment of 5 September 2019, AH and Others (Presumption of innocence), C‑377/18, EU:C:2019:670, paragraph 40).

    57.  In that regard, it should be noted that the presumption of innocence is enshrined in Article 48(1) of the Charter, which corresponds to Article 6(2) ECHR, as is apparent from the explanations to the Charter. It follows, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, that it is necessary to take account of Article 6(2) ECHR for the purpose of interpreting Article 48(1) of the Charter, as a minimum threshold of protection (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 September 2019, AH and Others (Presumption of innocence), C‑377/18, EU:C:2019:670, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

    58. In those circumstances, it is necessary, for the purpose of interpreting Article 4(1), read in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter, to draw on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Article 6(2) ECHR (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 September 2019, AH and Others (Presumption of innocence), C‑377/18, EU:C:2019:670, paragraph 42).

    ...

    66. Although it is ultimately for the referring court to determine whether Article 4(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter, was complied with in the course of the proceedings before the appeal court, the Court may, however, in the context of the judicial cooperation provided for in Article 267 TFEU, on the basis of the case file before it, provide that court with an interpretation of EU law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of those provisions (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2024, Vivacom Bulgaria, C‑369/23, EU:C:2024:1043, paragraph 41).

    ...

    80. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first three questions is that Article 3, Article 4(1) and Article 6(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 48 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding a criminal court ruling on an appeal against a decision closing criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no offence, from taking a position, in detail, on incriminating evidence by carrying out a factual and legal assessment of whether the constituent elements of the criminal offence at issue are present, when that court is not required to do so under national legislation in order to give a ruling, and that assessment is based solely on the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation procedure, without the accused person having had the opportunity to comment on that evidence, provided that that assessment does not reflect an opinion that that person is guilty of that criminal offence.

    ...

    92. It follows that, if the referring court were to consider that, in the light of the answer given to the first three questions, certain rulings of the appeal court are incompatible with the presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 3 and Article 4(1) of Directive 2016/343, read in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter, it would, in giving judgment, be required to set aside those rulings, without hindrance by any national rule obliging it to comply with those rulings.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)